Then Ashcroft took the case back from the Seattle prosecutors. Right before Rassam was supposed to testify at a trial in New York, after he had been cooperating for a good amount of time, the Justice Department delivered a letter saying he had to agree to no less than 27 years if he wanted a deal. The defense says it was shocked and they felt manipulated. Ultimately, they told Rassam to sign it and they explain why in their memorandum. They say they continued to work to change DOJ's mind, but they couldn't. Rassam continued to cooperate for a while, and then stopped. It's not entirely clear to me whether this was because of a deterioration in his mental state or because he realized the Government was not going to back off its 27 year minimum.
The defense says the Government's offer was unfair in light of Rassam's historic cooperation and they correctly point out the Court is not bound by their letter agreement. Also, the agreeement predated the Booker decision, when the Guidelines became discretionary and courts were directed to consider 18 USC 3553 factors as well as the guidelines.
The reasons Rassam's lawyers are asking for a 12 1/2 year sentence appear to be: (1) they believe the government did not operate in good faith in demanding Rassam's agreement to 27 years, and he had no real choice but to sign (2) the extent of his cooperation had not been anticipated at the time of the agreement to the "not less than 27 year sentence," (3) it thought the Government would change its mind and (4) Booker supersedes the letter agreement.
The UPI reports:
His defense lawyers contend his information saved countless lives, including those of FBI agents who otherwise wouldn't have known a sneaker they seized from would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid contained a virtually undetectable but powerful explosive device. They claim he provided information on more than 100 suspected terrorists, helped shut down clandestine al-Qaida cells and exposed valuable organizational secrets of the global terrorist network.
There was no plea agreement in the case since Rassam went to trial and lost. Just prior to trial, the Government offered him a 25 year sentence and he turned it down. After he lost at trial, he began cooperating. He was solitary confinement for almost four years, during which time his mental facilities deteriorated. A psychiatrist examined him and urged that he be removed from solitary. A year later, the Government complied. His lawyers say he's in better health now and may be able to resume cooperating. Today's Seattle Times reports:
The psychiatrist hired to evaluate Ressam, however, wrote in court documents that he was suffering from the effects of years of solitary confinement, which puts the mind in an utter fog. It also causes people to fixate on something-in Ressam's case, that he was being manipulated by the government. "The only way to have peace is give up hope," he told the psychiatrist.
Bottom line: It is still a "rat at your own risk" world, because the Justice Department holds the cards. Rassam's case illustrates the dangers of beginning cooperation without a firm agreement, before negotiations have been finalized. After a defendant gives away the store, he's at the mercy of the Government.
When defendant's agree to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence, it's usually fraught with the same peril. Federal plea agreements provide that whether a defendant's cooperation has been valuable enough to warrant a request for a lesser sentence, and the amount of any requested sentence reduction, are matters solely within the Government's discretion. Unless the agreement provides for a specified sentence, and the Court agrees to go along with it, the Government's assessment almost always prevails.
Note: The documents in the case are now available (pdf).
**********
Original Post
When defendants enter into cooperation agreements with the Government, it's rat at your own risk. Ahmed Ressam has learned this the hard way.
Rassam was arrested five years ago with possessing bomb-making materials in the trunk of his car at the U.S. border. He was convicted of planning to bomb LAX on the eve of the millenium. Facing huge time, he cooperated.
He told investigators from many countries about the locations of terror cells and camps, who ran them and how they operated.....he provided information on more than 100 potential terrorists and testified against co-conspirator Moktar Haouari and Sept. 11 plotter Mounir el-Motassadeq. Ressam told authorities he saw Zacarias Moussaoui at a training camp in Afghanistan in 1998; Moussaoui was later indicted in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Ressam first told investigators about the type of shoe-bomb Richard Reid attempted to use on a flight to the United States. And, his lawyers say, Ressam helped save lives by providing information about a network of Algerian terrorists operating in Europe.
But the Government decided it would still ask for a 27 year sentence. So Ahmed stopped cooperating in 2003. Now the Government wants 35 years from him. He faces sentencing tomorrow.
The Government says because Ressam stopped cooperating, it may have to drop the cases against the organizer of the plot he was involved in, and another coconspirator, both of whom are in custody awaiting extradition to the U.S.
It's the Government's own fault. All it had to do was offer Ressam a reasonable sentence.
Ahmed's public defenders will ask the Judge for a 12 1/2 year sentence. Now that the Guidelines are advisory, maybe the Judge will send a little message to the Government: don't be so greedy.
These aren't cookies we're tossing around, they are years of people's lives. A few here and a few there make a big difference.
